Internet Bill of Rights

Milo Yiannopolus, Roger Stone, Paul Nehlen, Jared Taylor, Baked Alaska, Ricky Vaughn, and thousands of supposed “Russian bots” are just a few of those Twitter has permanently banned, seemingly for expressing unpopular political viewpoints.  Wikipedia chronicles the various prominent accounts Twitter has banned and suspended.  Nearly all belong to right wingers.  Internet viewpoint discrimination goes beyond Twitter. YouTube (Google) routinely deletes accounts and videos of right wingers, particularly in the aftermath of the Parkland school shooting.  The problem of Internet censorship is also not isolated to social media.  Most notably, after featuring a joke about the woman who died at the Charlottesville protests, Andrew Anglin’s popular site The Daily Stormer has had to jump from host to host, prompting concerns among civil libertarians.  Once a last refuge for free speech, the Internet has become increasingly less so.  Perhaps we have reached the breaking point.  Is it time to adopt an Internet Bill of Rights to protect our God-given right of free speech on the web?

Advertisements

The New PC Culture

Image: Michael Shirey

Donald Trump’s election as President was, in part, a reaction to PC culture; a culture which regards the utterance of certain speech as worse than the offense of violent crimes. Unfortunately, the election of Trump has not eliminated this culture.  Instead, it has evolved. Some of those who spoke out against PC culture before Trump’s election now enforce their own version of it.  Take a look at a couple recent examples:

“Fake News”

Citizen Journalist Zdenek Gazda changed the course of the 2016 presidential election.

Every time I read the news, I hear about so-called “fake news.”  “Fake news” spread Russian propaganda.  “Fake news” invented Clinton scandals.  “Fake news” elected Donald Trump.  “Fake news” has destroyed American democracy.  And now, the mere mention of a “fake news” story could cause the loss of life.

Hysteria over “fake news” reached a fever pitch with the election of Donald Trump.  The mainstream media had repeatedly declared there was no way Trump could win.

Interview with Independent Presidential Candidate Laurence Kotlikoff

The following was originally published as part of the August 2016 edition of Wikinews’ On the campaign trail series

Kotlikoff in 2011.
Image: Hung-Ho Vergil Yu

In August, economist Laurence Kotlikoff, a Boston University professor and former senior economist of President Ronald Reagan‘s Council of Economic Advisers, secured ballot access for his unconventional presidential campaign in Louisiana and Colorado. In addition, he plans to obtain write-in status in 41 more states. Wikinews reached out to Kotlikoff to discuss his campaign.

Kotlikoff announced his candidacy last May. He named Edward E. Leamer, a professor of economics at UCLA, as his running mate. This is not Kotlikoff’s first run for the presidency. In 2012, he sought the presidential nomination of Americans Elect, which ultimately did not field a candidate. He also briefly sought the Reform Party presidential nomination that year.

Ivanka Trump Wins Reform Party Nomination

Adapted from IPR

Ivanka Trump
Image: Seeds of Peace

According to the New York City Board of Elections, businesswoman Ivanka Trump, daughter of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, won the Reform Party’s primary election for U.S. Congress in New York’s 12th Congressional District.

Trump received 2 write-in votes.  Three other candidates each received one.

The 12th District includes parts of Manhattan, Queens, and Brooklyn.  Democrat Carolyn Maloney is the current representative.

The Celebration of Submission

In a surreal display Thursday, prominent Internet sites celebrated as the federal government seized control over the last known vehicle for free expression.  Twitter, Reddit, and Buzzfeed all applauded the FCC takeover of the Internet under the guise of “Net Neutrality.”  As these sites ceded freedom for short term convenience, the FCC commenced its crusade against ISPs, opening the door to further Internet regulation—regulation that may not be so benevolent.

The Perfect Response to the Thought Police

Today, as I read a Huffington Post article about Kim Kardashian’s Paper Magazine cover and the hilarious responses to it, I was excited by the ease at which people can express themselves today.  But just as that thought crossed my mind, I was linked to another Huffington Post article that left me deeply disturbed, and compelled me to write this article.

Apparently, a former contestant from the British version of The Apprentice, named Katie Hopkins, wrote something offensive on Twitter about Palestinians.  Now droves of people in the United Kingdom are calling for her prosecution under the Public Order Act 1986, specifically for “stirr[ing] up racial hatred.”

Federal “Hate Speech” Ban on Horizon

The US government is inching closer to banning so-called hate speech.  The Washington Free Beacon reports, the National Science Foundation (NSF), a federal agency, will spend nearly $1 million in taxpayer money to create an internet database targeting “false and misleading ideas,” “suspicious memes,” and “hate speech” on Twitter.  Though the database will have no authority immediately, it reflects the federal government’s priority and foreshadows passage of a hate speech ban similar to the UK’s Public Order Act 1986.

Internet Speech: Threat or Expression?

Just as reports surfaced of the U.S. government’s  increasing number of requests for personal information on Twitter, the San Antonio Express News revealed an ongoing Texas Department of Public Safety investigation of two people, relating to Twitter posts advocating the death penalty for the Governor of Texas among others.

The suspicious posts, shown below, were made in response to Texas Governor Rick Perry’s signing of a bill restricting abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy to prevent fetal pain.